If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

1. A thief: (a) around 08:40 on December 2, 2013, the Defendant: (b) stolen the victim C at the Dental Mara operated by the victim C, who was in his/her custody, at the risk of 10,000 won of the market value of the victim’s possession; and (c) stolen the victim at the risk of 10,000 won.

2. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by force on the ground that the victim F, who was the victim F, was under the influence of alcohol at a G restaurant operated by the victim F, who was the victim F, from around 18:20 on the 18:20th of December 2, 2013, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s restaurant business by abusing a disturbance, such as gathering glass cups, flowers, etc. on the floor; and (b) interfered with

3. On December 2, 2013, the Defendant was arrested and detained in flagrant offenders under suspicion of interference with the duties as described in paragraph (2), at the I police box located in the Ha, who was located in the Gyeong-gun, 18:40 on December 2, 2013.

피고인은 술에 취한 상태에서 경찰관들이 수갑을 풀어주지 않는다는 이유로 창녕경찰서I파출소 소속 경위 J에게 “개새끼야, 씨발놈아, 직이삔다, 디지삐라”라고 욕설을 하며 위 J에게 뜨거운 커피가 담겨있는 종이컵을 던져 폭행하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the legitimate execution of duties of police officers in the military.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of each police statement to C, F, and J;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines, respectively;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime, and that it was not agreed with the victim of obstruction of performance of official duties. However, the Defendant’s mistake is against himself.